RE: Death penalty, another angle

RE: Death penalty, another angle (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

OttersSwim -> RE: Death penalty, another angle (11/6/2009 11:18:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: OttersSwim Prisoners there enjoy cable tv, video games, recreational facilities, and gymnasiums. They have libraries, can go to school, get vocational training, free medical care, and three meals a day. And WE pay for all this. Are you talking about this complex which doesn't house anyone higher than medium custody classification? I am yes.

kdsub -> RE: Death penalty, another angle (11/6/2009 11:25:06 AM)
A man or woman kills... serves 7 years in prison...is paroled... then kills again...Now if he or she had been executed the second life or more would have been saved. There would be no need to deter the second crime. That is my point. I never mentioned deter crime...I believe that CP serves a purpose and saves lives if administered properly. Now the real question is not if it deters crime but does it save lives and can it be administered properly to prevent innocent deaths. Butch

DomKen -> RE: Death penalty, another angle (11/6/2009 1:45:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Now the real question is not if it deters crime but does it save lives and can it be administered properly to prevent innocent deaths. No it does not save lives and no it cannot be administered in a way that prevents innocents from being executed. Since the reinstatement we have one proven innocent executed and at least a half dozen executed where their guilt is strongly questioned. We had 2 innocent men on death row for a decade because 2 deputies lied about one telling them about a dream. During that time the actual killer killed twice more.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Death penalty, another angle (11/6/2009 1:50:15 PM)
Sure it can be administered in a way that prevents innocents from being put to death. Make it require at least 2 eyewitness accounts of the crime, or videotaped evidence of such. The other could be for multiple inicident offenders, where their third time convicted at certain crimes, then death could be a possible punishment. My question is: If the chance of error could be removed from the application of death senetences, would those that currently oppose it, support it? If not, then the chance of putting an innocent to death is not the real reason you oppose it.

Vendaval -> RE: Death penalty, another angle (11/6/2009 2:08:50 PM)
Greetings Orion, I am divided on the death penalty mainly because of the number of wrongly convicted people that have been freed based on DNA evidence. I can certainly understand the feelings of the families and friends who have lost a loved one and wish to see the murdered put to death. But there is a larger moral question about the right of the state/nation to decide on the life or death of a convicted criminal. I favor life sentencing without the possibility of parole for the most violent offenders.

rockspider -> RE: Death penalty, another angle (11/6/2009 2:17:26 PM)
I am for CP. But unfortunately specially in the US there is a lot of cases where an inocent is found guilty. Maybe the solution lies in that CP can only come in to question if there is a clear confession from the criminal or he/she is actually caught red handed in the act. Jury trial is not secure enough, specially when t day it shows so clearly that the poor very often is given second or third rate legal defence.

Blaakmaan -> RE: Death penalty, another angle (11/6/2009 2:19:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or So we have a serial killer discovered in Cleveland. Not the best way to gain notariey but, oh well. Now, the death penalty has been discussed many times, and many people come out and say that it is uncivilised and generally a bad thing we should never ever do. A quick look at recent developments is in order. He was already a registered sex offender. He had the guile to operate for some time, IIRC from 2005 until now. That's about one every three months. He already was a registered sex offender, and was out of jail/prison. What did he do the first time ? Do you think some little girl fell on his face and her panties fell down or some shit ? They don't mark you for life like that for accidents. It's amazing in real life how many people may oppose the death penalty in a case like many others, but not this. Almost a dozen people died instead of one. Most people will be alot less voiciferous in their objection to the death penalty in this case. Why ? Well of course it is obvious. However it is also obvious that if he got executed the first time, there would be less dead victims. Is his life worth more than their's ? Bleed your heart out because this poor little soul had to kill ten people to get his jollies. And now go to the victims' families and do the same thing, plead his case. See how far you get. What's more what if they ID one of the bodies as one of your lost loved ones ? Can you still argue against it ? You can say all you want that they should get life without the possibility of parole, but that is not logical. Want it logical ? YOU pay for it. If you say they are sick and in need of help, help them. The quickest way is the electric chair. They will be cured instantly. Do that and others would not have to die. And who knows what happened before he killed them ? What kinds of things was he doing to make it so important that there were no witnesses ? Or was it a strange fetish that they die ? A group in Russia was busted for selling tapes of babies getting raped and killed. It did not make the major news. But they were purportedly getting about $10,000 - 20,000 per tape when they sold them. As sick as it may be it happened. My question is what kind of person pays that kind of money for something like that ? So back to this guy, a scant few miles from me, who warranted the death penalty. He was not only busted before, now he has shown that he CAN beat the system and get away with killing our people and who knows what else ? That is by definition a predator, and by the Law of Life we have every right to kill predators. What say you now ? Indeed, what say you now ? T Well, first I say, bad cases make bad law. In other words, an extreme case like this one is not a case that should be used to make or evaluate policy decisions. Second, I just got through watching a made-for-tv movie about the Green River Killer, Gary Leon Ridgway (a white man), in Washington State. Mr. Ridgway confessed to 48 murders, possibly including a victim as young as 12. He got life in prison without the possibility of parole. http://www.karisable.com/greenriver.htm Then, there was the "BTK Killer" in Kansas, Dennis Rader (also a white man). He "bound, tortured and killed" 10 people, including at least one child. He got life in prison without the possibility of parole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rader So, next to these folks, our Cleveland killer, bad as he is, is a rank amateur. He should get the death penalty while the above got life without parole--why, exactly??? Because he's blacker and poorer than Mr. Ridgway and Mr. Rader? Because his crimes were committed in Ohio instead of Washington or Kansas? Why? A reason that makes sense??? Got one??? Certainly not because his crimes were more heinous, or because his victims suffered more. The death penalty: 1. Is no deterrent to crime. (The Fort Hood shooter--yesterday--committed mass murder in Texas, on a military facility, both of which increased his possibility of getting the death penalty exponentially. Didn't seem to deter HIM. And wasn't there a mass killing in Florida--a death penalty state--TODAY???) 2. Is the quintessentially arbitrary and capricious legal sanction (getting the death penalty is the legal equivalent of being struck by lightening). 3. Is applied and administered in a discriminatory manner (minorities and the poor and people living in the South are multiple times more likely to get the death penalty than are whites, the wealthy and people who don't live in the South). 4. Costs millions of dollars more than life in prison without parole does to prosecute and execute. 5. Risks executing the innocent (how many people have been exonerated off of death row already?) 6. Is frankly barbaric. And we should kill people in the name of justice... why exactly? Because it makes you feel better? It doesn't bring back the dead, as far as I know.

DomKen -> RE: Death penalty, another angle (11/6/2009 3:10:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Sure it can be administered in a way that prevents innocents from being put to death. Make it require at least 2 eyewitness accounts of the crime, or videotaped evidence of such. The other could be for multiple inicident offenders, where their third time convicted at certain crimes, then death could be a possible punishment. My question is: If the chance of error could be removed from the application of death senetences, would those that currently oppose it, support it? If not, then the chance of putting an innocent to death is not the real reason you oppose it. No. Any standard that purports to make rock solid certain that onlythe 'truly guilty' get executed will be perverted. Eyewitnesses are notoriusly unreliable for instance, many of those released from death row after being proven innocent had multiple eyewitnesses testifying against them. Videotape is no more sure than that. It is rare that a killer stops and smiles for a camera. The rest of the time you'd be relying on partial profiles and blurry images. No thanks. As to your question, my opposition to CP is on two grounds. One is I think revenge killing is wrong and that, IMO, is what CP is. Secondly even if we as a society are going to be in the business of revenge killing I can't accept that innocent people will be murdered in my name often in order to advance the political careers of people who have no business being responsible for goldfish much less life and death. For instance Jim Ryan is running for Governor of Illinois when by all rights he should be sitting in prison doing a life term for multiple counts of conspiracy to commit murder.

NihilusZero -> RE: Death penalty, another angle (11/6/2009 3:16:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blaakmaan 6. Is frankly barbaric. 20 points.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Death penalty, another angle (11/6/2009 3:57:51 PM)
I understand the problem but what do you do with something like this? "Also in 2005, culminating an eight year investigation, federal prosecutors indicted forty members of the organization, thirty of whom were already incarcerated, for a wide variety of crimes. Prosecuting the gang has been historically difficult, because many members are already serving life sentences with no possibility of parole, so prosecutors were seeking the death penalty for twenty-one of those indicted but have dropped the death penalty on all but five defendants. " Many of these that were serving life sentences, without the possibility of parole, were responsible for murders, kidnappings, extortion, rape, and drug traffiking. So if they are already serving life with no parole, they have nothing to lose by doing other crimes, whether it is against those inside the prison, or in connection with organizations they control outside the prison. The Death Penalty has it's place, but not as it is currently administered in many states. If any other type of living organism is determined as a deadly threat to human life, it is extinguished, why not other humans that have had this determined in an irrefutable manner? quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Greetings Orion, I am divided on the death penalty mainly because of the number of wrongly convicted people that have been freed based on DNA evidence. I can certainly understand the feelings of the families and friends who have lost a loved one and wish to see the murdered put to death. But there is a larger moral question about the right of the state/nation to decide on the life or death of a convicted criminal. I favor life sentencing without the possibility of parole for the most violent offenders.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Death penalty, another angle (11/6/2009 4:07:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No. Any standard that purports to make rock solid certain that onlythe 'truly guilty' get executed will be perverted. Could you provide an applicable example? quote: Eyewitnesses are notoriusly unreliable for instance, many of those released from death row after being proven innocent had multiple eyewitnesses testifying against them. Videotape is no more sure than that. It is rare that a killer stops and smiles for a camera. The rest of the time you'd be relying on partial profiles and blurry images. No thanks. So if eyewitness is unreliable, how can anyone ever be convicted? So how many eyewitnesses does it take? I am also speaking of eyewitnesses to the actual crime. Could you provide one of the cases you are speaking of that had two or more eyewitnesses to the crime? quote: As to your question, my opposition to CP is on two grounds. One is I think revenge killing is wrong and that, IMO, is what CP is. This may be some people's motivation, which is a by-product of the purpose I put forth, and that is guaranteed to not commit the same acts again. quote: Secondly even if we as a society are going to be in the business of revenge killing I can't accept that innocent people will be murdered in my name often in order to advance the political careers of people who have no business being responsible for goldfish much less life and death. Focus a bit now, my proposition was if there were a way for it to be irrefutable, would you support it. You have steered away from that, and put back into the equation that the guilt is refuatable. So this comment is not applicable to my question. As far as advancing poltical careers, there are people made to go hungry, suffer living outside as homeless, and many other things that are currently going on, that advances people's political careers. It is part of this beast, that we the people, have created. quote: For instance Jim Ryan is running for Governor of Illinois when by all rights he should be sitting in prison doing a life term for multiple counts of conspiracy to commit murder. Running around in left field, waving your hands around does detract from the actual game. Not sure if you get the metaphor, but this comment put it in my head. So do you believe there is ever a reason to remove someone's life? Whether it be state sanctioned or not?

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Death penalty, another angle (11/6/2009 4:20:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blaakmaan The death penalty: 1. Is no deterrent to crime. (The Fort Hood shooter--yesterday--committed mass murder in Texas, on a military facility, both of which increased his possibility of getting the death penalty exponentially. Didn't seem to deter HIM. And wasn't there a mass killing in Florida--a death penalty state--TODAY???) I agree that it is an ineffective deterrent. quote: 2. Is the quintessentially arbitrary and capricious legal sanction (getting the death penalty is the legal equivalent of being struck by lightening). Actually it should be, but it is often applied in cases that have a margin of possible error. It should be rare, extremely, but not eliminated entirely as a tool to protect society. quote: 3. Is applied and administered in a discriminatory manner (minorities and the poor and people living in the South are multiple times more likely to get the death penalty than are whites, the wealthy and people who don't live in the South). Have you looked into the reasons why, from a societal level? It has much more to do with poverty, and growing up in areas that a rife with things that mold minds into killers. That is a seperate issue, and one society as a whole needs to address, but they won't. I see nothing being done that will change any of the environment that people are raised in, so we deal with what we have now. quote: 4. Costs millions of dollars more than life in prison without parole does to prosecute and execute. I agree for normal incarceration, but what about those kept in SHU? I have seen costs that range from an additional $50,000 to $100,000 per inmate to be kept in SHU. Also, the protection of society should not have a price tag, though waste should be eliminated. quote: 5. Risks executing the innocent (how many people have been exonerated off of death row already?) I agree and stricter guidelines for when the death penalty can be applied would eliminate this. If someone has been convicted on five seperate murders, at five seperate times, it is highly improbable that they were wrongly convicted in all of those cases. Also, what of those that have multiple eyewitnesses to the crime, with proof positive identification? What of those crimes committed by those already serving a life sentence? quote: 6. Is frankly barbaric. The thin layer of civility in even the most advanced countries, are just that, thin veils. The word barbaric is used to offer that something is beneath us as human beings. Put a gun in your hand, an ax in the hand of a murderer, and that ax about to fall on a child and how quickly will you become "barbaric". There is nothing wrong with violence, when applied properly. quote: And we should kill people in the name of justice... why exactly? To prevent them from committing heinous acts again. The protection of members of society, other inmates, and the personel that work in the prisons. quote: Because it makes you feel better? Sometimes it does make me feel better, but those feelings aside, it should be there to make us feel safer when a mass murderer is eliminated from society. quote: It doesn't bring back the dead, as far as I know. No it doesn't and revenge should not be the main focus for Death Penalty. Revenege is a by product, just like any sentence a criminal gets, is a measure of revenge or closure for the victims.

kdsub -> RE: Death penalty, another angle (11/6/2009 7:21:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Now the real question is not if it deters crime but does it save lives and can it be administered properly to prevent innocent deaths. No it does not save lives and no it cannot be administered in a way that prevents innocents from being executed. Since the reinstatement we have one proven innocent executed and at least a half dozen executed where their guilt is strongly questioned. We had 2 innocent men on death row for a decade because 2 deputies lied about one telling them about a dream. During that time the actual killer killed twice more. Common sense says you are wrong in your assessment...it does stop repeat murders and therefore saves lives...but you are right in it is not now administered fairly with universal rules to reasonably assure that innocents are not executed. We have disagreed in the past as to the possibility that rules could be applied to capital punishment…No since in rehashing. Butch

DomKen -> RE: Death penalty, another angle (11/6/2009 8:45:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf quote: Eyewitnesses are notoriusly unreliable for instance, many of those released from death row after being proven innocent had multiple eyewitnesses testifying against them. Videotape is no more sure than that. It is rare that a killer stops and smiles for a camera. The rest of the time you'd be relying on partial profiles and blurry images. No thanks. So if eyewitness is unreliable, how can anyone ever be convicted? So how many eyewitnesses does it take? I am also speaking of eyewitnesses to the actual crime. Could you provide one of the cases you are speaking of that had two or more eyewitnesses to the crime? The Anthony Porter case involed one supposed eyewitness. The cases of William Jent and Earnest Miller involved 3 supposed eyewitnesses. The Ryan Matthews case involved two eyewitnesses. quote: Focus a bit now, my proposition was if there were a way for it to be irrefutable, would you support it. You have steered away from that, and put back into the equation that the guilt is refuatable. So this comment is not applicable to my question. As far as advancing poltical careers, there are people made to go hungry, suffer living outside as homeless, and many other things that are currently going on, that advances people's political careers. It is part of this beast, that we the people, have created. You're presenting what is essentially a utopian vision which IMO is impossible to achieve. quote: quote: For instance Jim Ryan is running for Governor of Illinois when by all rights he should be sitting in prison doing a life term for multiple counts of conspiracy to commit murder. Running around in left field, waving your hands around does detract from the actual game. Not sure if you get the metaphor, but this comment put it in my head. So do you believe there is ever a reason to remove someone's life? Whether it be state sanctioned or not? How is it not relevant that a man who built his career around trying to have two innocent men executed is still considered a viable candidate for high office? Do you think Ryan is the only prosecutor past, present or future who thinks railroading a couple of innocent brown people is an excellent way to boost his political fotunes?

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Death penalty, another angle (11/6/2009 9:25:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The Anthony Porter case involed one supposed eyewitness. The cases of William Jent and Earnest Miller involved 3 supposed eyewitnesses. The Ryan Matthews case involved two eyewitnesses. Actually the William Jent and Earnest Miller case involved two eyewitnesses that testified. So make it three eyewitnesses. quote: You're presenting what is essentially a utopian vision which IMO is impossible to achieve. No I was presenting something that reveals whether someone's actual reason for being against the Death Penalty, to be the death of an innocent, or something else. Just as your statement admits that there will never be a perfect system. So at what point do you consider there to be enough evidence to imprison someone in a SuperMax for life? If they are innocent, then wouldn't almost every day be torture? So if they serve 20 years, savaged and raped by the inmates, is that more or less horrible than death? Really what is it about the Death Penalty, but not life in prison, that has you upset?

DomKen -> RE: Death penalty, another angle (11/6/2009 10:37:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf So at what point do you consider there to be enough evidence to imprison someone in a SuperMax for life? If they are innocent, then wouldn't almost every day be torture? So if they serve 20 years, savaged and raped by the inmates, is that more or less horrible than death? Really what is it about the Death Penalty, but not life in prison, that has you upset? I would prefer that prisons be run in a safe manner so that inmates, guilty or innocent, are not savaged and raped. The fact that our society allows prisons to be places of savagery is one that disturbs me greatly. In this manner I think your religious beliefs are coloring the discussion. I do not posit an afterlife so I do not consider killing someone to be anything less than the complete and utter annihilation of that self. An innocent should not be destroyed just to so our sick society can engage in bloody revenge. If he is locked up for 20 years he will at least one day walk free again.

MargueriteV -> RE: Death penalty, another angle (11/6/2009 11:47:10 PM)
If old school solitary confinement wasn't inhumane or expensive i think it would be a real punishment for people that do horrible things to others.

Arpig -> RE: Death penalty, another angle (11/7/2009 1:47:41 AM)
Ah well, i will wade in once again...Nope, he should not have gotten the death penalty before and he should not get it now. The death penalty is nothing but murder dressed up in fancy clothes. When the state kills, you kill. Its that simple. I don't wish to kill anybody, and I don't want anybody killed in my name...there really is no moral difference between doing it oneself and having it done for you, except that there is more cowardice in doing it through the courts, you can hide behind the judge's robes and pretend it wasn't you that did it. Pretend all you want...it was you.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Death penalty, another angle (11/7/2009 6:05:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I would prefer that prisons be run in a safe manner so that inmates, guilty or innocent, are not savaged and raped. The fact that our society allows prisons to be places of savagery is one that disturbs me greatly. How do you propose this be done, when it is populated by some savages? I would prefer that people not commit the acts that require some of these sentences, but you were the one talking about painting a utopian society, which is what our preferences are. So the question remains unanswered by you. quote: In this manner I think your religious beliefs are coloring the discussion. I do not posit an afterlife so I do not consider killing someone to be anything less than the complete and utter annihilation of that self. You have no clue what you are speaking about here. So what do you think my beliefs are anyway? If I were to be classified it would be along the lines of a Deist/Taoist. quote: An innocent should not be destroyed just to so our sick society can engage in bloody revenge. If he is locked up for 20 years he will at least one day walk free again. So 20 years of savagry and torture are okay? The mental, emotional and possibly physical wounds and scars that are carried afterwards are okay? If it were me and I knew I would have to serve a long period in a max prison, even if innocent, I would prefer a quick and painless death. Regardless, I still find it odd that one is okay with you but the other is not.

DomKen -> RE: Death penalty, another angle (11/7/2009 6:42:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf How do you propose this be done, when it is populated by some savages? I would prefer that people not commit the acts that require some of these sentences, but you were the one talking about painting a utopian society, which is what our preferences are. So the question remains unanswered by you. You do realize that other nations have prison systems not characterized by rape and savagery? Things that are known to work are simple. 1 inmate per cell. Cell doors that are locked with the inmates inside when the prisoners cannot be under positive supervision by guards. quote: So 20 years of savagry and torture are okay? The mental, emotional and possibly physical wounds and scars that are carried afterwards are okay? If it were me and I knew I would have to serve a long period in a max prison, even if innocent, I would prefer a quick and painless death. Regardless, I still find it odd that one is okay with you but the other is not. It's not ok with me that an innocent man should spend 1 hour in prison. But if it is going to happen I'd rather have the opportunity to correct the problem. You can easily enough check with those released from death row for being innocent that they are all quite happy to have not been killed swiftly by the state.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875